Benny G. Rivera v. J. ADAM SHEPPARD, Sheriff, Gila County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENNY G. RIVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. ADAM SHEPPARD, Sheriff, Gila
County; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17477
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01255-JAT-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Pretrial detainee Benny G. Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations under Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17477
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Rivera’s ADA claim because Rivera failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that he was a qualified individual with a disability
and that defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his
disability. However, in his original complaint, Rivera alleged that he has a spine
impairment, and in his second amended complaint, Rivera alleged that he was
limited in his ability to perform major life activities, such as using the toilet and
shower unaided, and that defendants discriminated against him by denying him the
required accommodations. Liberally construed, these allegations “are sufficient to
warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d
1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th
Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angles, 833
F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (setting forth the elements of an ADA Title II
claim); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) (“The term ‘disability’ means . . . a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities of such individual[.]”); Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1196
(9th Cir. 2010) (holding that physical barriers that denied disabled inmates access
to prison facilities, such as bathrooms, showers, and other common areas, violated
the ADA).
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --